7 U.S.C. § 1330
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1942–1968 · leading case: Fraser v. United States, 145 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1944).
Fraser v. United States, 145 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1944). “74, 77th Congress, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1330 , 1340. The original controversy arose between the producers and the purchasers as to which party was required to pay the penalty, but the United States intervened, and on the ground that the purchasers had made no accounting to the…”
United States v. Shafer, 132 F. Supp. 659 (D. Maryland 1955). “905 , 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1330 , 1334a. 2 . Reg. sec.”
United States v. Harold C. & Olive B. Isaak, 400 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1968). “Crop loans by the Commodity Credit Corporation, 7 U.S.C. § 1330 (10), function as a vital part of the legislative program of agricultural price supports.”
Filburn v. Helke, 43 F. Supp. 1017 (S.D. Ohio 1942). “) Under the circumstances we are obliged to hold that the amendment of May 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1330 , 1340, in so far as it increased the penalty for the farm marketing excess over the fifteen cents per bushel prevailing at the time of planting and subjected the entire crop…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.